First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.

Yes, rules will spontaneously arise, and people will enforce them. Governance without government. No objections. I simply prefer not to call it a system, since it can arise without coercion. It's just nature....As we can see, you are an anarchist. You might prefer some synonym that sounds less provocative, but you fit under the umbrella of people who support the idea of statelessness...the end of taxation.

Quote

Second of all, your totalitarian rule that I not discuss the reasons in the second half of my essay are totally subjective and arbitrary. You of all people should allow a discussion of whatever wherever. You're totally undisciplined on terminology on stuff that matters, but when it comes to this forum you seem to be a petty and misguided dictator.

Nothing totalitarian about it. You are welcome to make posts regarding that subject here, and no one will erase them. Anyone is welcome to respond to them without fear of having posts erased. It's just a preference of mine to keep valuable discussions in places where people will be more likely to find them later on, so I personally will not have that discussion here, where it will be buried in a thread with a title having nothing to do with it.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

First of all, under my system, you are subject to a jurisdiction of Natural Law, enforced by others if they so choose, subject to certain rules (similar to probable cause before coming into someone's home). Some anarchists object, some don't. Don't ask me whether you count it one way or the other.

Yes, rules will spontaneously arise, and people will enforce them. Governance without government. No objections. I simply prefer not to call it a system, since it can arise without coercion. It's just nature....As we can see, you are an anarchist. You might prefer some synonym that sounds less provocative, but you fit under the umbrella of people who support the idea of statelessness...the end of taxation.

I'm not sure we're communicating. When I say "Natural Law" jurisdiction, I am referring to the possibility of a government which enforces Natural Law. This includes the possibility of Americans consensually supporting the Federal Government in that role. If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Why? To name one reason, I don't want the Chinese instituting Communism here. I believe in a centralized military strong enough to keep out foreign aggressors. Now in the ideal world and in the long-run, there are none. Humanity learns how to behave itself. And this military would wither away to the National Guard. But for now that is not the case.

Since the Federal Government would be the most powerful of consensually supported governments, any others that might arise would be irrelevant, and given a firm commitment by the Federal Government to protect rights, undesired. I am not saying they shouldn't have a right to arise (which is similar to the competing government scenario of anarcho-capitalism outside of city-state zones). I'm saying it'd just be a theoretical possibility that would not actually manifest (except in the same kind of way that State governments already manifest a jurisdiction that should be based on Natural Law -- more locally).

Given my last post, which says that the Federal Government says around, but that its functions are scaled back to morally-defensible functions, if that existed as I say it would have both a historical and logical connection to our current Federal Government, and I think it is patently absurd to call this "anarchy."

If it made certain changes I would voluntarily support it in that role as I am certain a majority of Americans would.

Your reforms would never satisfy my desire to be free

Better buy a spaceship, you're gonna need it.

I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.

I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.

Well it's good we have some common ground in there. I agree in essential terms with this, other than your use of the word "anarchy" and "free market" to describe the underlying facts.

You would probably like my book better than the essay, since it is primarily focussed on the underlying values that people should embrace (which I term as "individual rights" -- I know you disagree with "rights", but you're disagreeing with an obsolete conception so in some sense I don't disagree with your disagreement). This Against Anarchism essay is just a foray into a much narrower issue.

I might not see a free society in my lifetime, but it's where the species is headed. Earth will never see a non-coercive govt like you describe. Ancaps have you owned on probability, and feasibility. Your idea is that it's possible to have everyone (>300 million) in a geographic area consent to what a government does, after which the govt won't violate freedoms. This isn't a discussion anymore.

Recently I've been skimming through David Friedman's book on anarcho-capitalism, and he makes the very good point that it doesn't even necessarily lead to a free society. If a majority of people want non-libertarian laws, like drug laws say (or tax laws), then they will "bid" for these laws on the "free" market and have their way with you.

Yep, you're gonna need a spaceship.

You're absolutely correct about that. This is why I've written past articles on how we are already living in a completely free-market. This is the result. If you don't like it you have two choices, go along with it anyway, or disobey. This is why I am telling you that anarchy is the way of the world all of the time. There is nothing you or I or anybody can do to create anarchy. It's already here. Anarchy is the way of the world. It is truth. My goal is to better understand the way of the world as well as help others to better understand the way of the world. The better we understand the laws of nature, the better off we will be. The more we ignore the laws of nature, the worse off we will be.

Well it's good we have some common ground in there. I agree in essential terms with this, other than your use of the word "anarchy" and "free market" to describe the underlying facts.

You would probably like my book better than the essay, since it is primarily focussed on the underlying values that people should embrace (which I term as "individual rights" -- I know you disagree with "rights", but you're disagreeing with an obsolete conception so in some sense I don't disagree with your disagreement). This Against Anarchism essay is just a foray into a much narrower issue.